Although it's much less expensive to just spread the story of how bad the company is far and wide on the internet and see what the PR damage does to you bill. This actually works in several cases.
Visionary IS crazy. A visionary sees things that aren't really there. Venture capitalists are essentially lost in the desert and running out of water, and when they see some heat addled brain wander by they say "which way should we walk?" 9 times out of 10 the crazy guy points to a bad direction to go, but that one time it just happens by chance to be correct. The VCs walk out of the desert, just barely, and proclaim the peyote imbibing loon a visionary.
The only difference between Theranos and the typical dot-com startup was the degree of insanity.
The sets weren't the same though. The UFO moonbase sets were kind of small. I was surprised that the Space:1999 moon base had large sets with more open space. It feels odd given that a moon base would have limited resources. Google the images for "moon base alpha interiors".
Often the incompetent people who understood the code originally leave and are replaced with incompetent people who don't understand the code. Hiring competent people may not be one of the options you're presented with.
Half the time the people who wrote it don't even realize they made a mistake. I've done it myself, looking at old code and thinking "what moron did this?", looking at who made the code commit, and realizing it was me.
Have to agree there. I've seen that new guy in several places. "Why are you using C+ in your embedded system, there's this new language called Java you should use!", "Well, MY professor said that's the wrong way to do things", "I have a few suggestions for your coding style document", "I saw a goto in the code, who's the proper HR person to report this to?
The snag is that rewriting is not a direct revenue generating operation, so it's usually frowned upon as a waste of money. I know lots of code that really needs rewriting but it can't practically be done. Most likely the people who understand that code have left years ago and never documented anything (the code wouldn't even need rewriting if the original authors were good enough to know to document things clearly).
Don't even start thinking about rewriting until you have clear documenation about what the code actually does and have developers who understand it. Don't design in a rush like the first group did. And watch out for that one guy pushing for the rewrite who thinks he knows everything but really doesn't.
And rewriting the code may mean that you end up not being backwards compatible. Contrary to what Joel implied, the original code usually does NOT have hard earned knowlege behind it, generally all that old crufty code was written in startup days when you have to quickly ship a working demo every Friday or be out of a job, so there are tons of bugs and shortcuts riddled through everything. And you have to remain compatible with the bugs most of the time in order to interoperate (keeping the same protocols, file formats, etc).
If they place some value on Palestinean lives, then why is it that every time things seem to be cooling down a bit they go and build some new illegal settlements in occupied land even though they know it will only cause more fighting? Both sides know what to do to have peace, and both sides assiduously avoid it.
Just to summarize most of humanity's never-ending conflicts: "If they stopped killing us then we wouldn't be forced to kill them." This excuse always ignores that the other side is using the same excuse as well.
Sort of. It had an Italian TV producer. I loved some Gerry Anderson stuff but then it felt flat when he did Space: 1999. Not sure why. U.F.O. was fun with a quirky futuristic feel. Space:1999 just felt like the 70's in space with lousy scripts and awful actors (Barbara Bain seemed to just be collecting a paycheck, And Martin Landau who is otherwise great really didn't seem to pull off the vibe of being a leader).
You also don't want to let that door open even a crack. Companies have intruded more and more into privacy in the past. Why wait until something awful happens before you tell them to stop it?
You thought you shut the bathroom door for privacy, but the door didn't click and pretty soon the dog is sitting there wagging his tail watching you poop.
This would be funny if it weren't true. No wait. It is funny. Not even the most highly LSD fueled scifi writer in the 70s could have predicted this outcome for humanity.
The Spectre and Meltdown attack proof-of-concepts were for Intel processors, presumably also the clones, and the attacks are based on knowing internal specifics of their highly speculative execution engines. Ie, if you don't use a PC you're automatically a lot safe (though not completely), and if you're using a processor without a speculative execution engine then these attack vectors won't do anything at all. The chips that are vulnerable are very high end CPUs, not the stuff in your microwave or wifi router. Though of course, those processors undoubtedly have their own vulnerabilities, they're just not Spectre or Meltdown.
The other thing that's important in security is if an attacker can get close or not. I don't worry much about my automobile being hacked because it's not on the internet and would require physical access to compromise it. Similarly, if you're on a PC and you have 100% control over any and all code running on it, then it will be pretty safe (ie, it's not plugged into the internet, you're not shoving in thumbdrives, etc).
Things start becoming much more susceptible to Spectre or Meltdown once you start letting your browser run random Javascript from the internet, or if you put your product up in the cloud running on just one of many VMs residing on the same physical server.
The side channel attacks do things like measure how long a set of operations take to execute, which gives extra information about what the operations actually did. That can tell you if some relevant data was already in the cache or whether it had to be loaded from RAM. Do the appropriate magic and you can start to deduce things about the contents of memory that you can't see.
That is, it's a side-channel attack. They're still treating the processor a a black box that you can't peek inside of, but you can still get some information to leak out (shake the box and listen).
This is complicated stuff though, and some of these things are estimating maybe you can figure out the contents of 2000 bytes a second. The details of the attacks are highly depending upon the exact processor being used.
I am. Though maybe it's just bad technology reporting. When they say "all processors that perform speculative execution will always remain susceptible" there's something wrong being reported. They should add in that this does not mean ALL processors (past, present, future, and from any vendor), and should end with "unless processors are redesigned."
Reading the summary as-is literally, it is disgreeing with itself.
Good point. I feel there's a whole lot of wishy washy handwaving done with evolution by people who don't have an indepth knowledge of evolution. I will agree I am someone who doesn't know it as well as many. I do see however many people who seem to have a superficial understanding and who have a lot of anthropomorphic views on it. Ie, that evolution leads from to better organisms, that some creatures are more evolved than others, that there's a "reason" or goal for evolution and that every facet of an organism has a purpose. This reaches levels of absurdity with sociology people at times, such as "what is the evolutionary purpose for grandparents?"
When you think about it, we actually do know everying there is to know. This Joe Read from Montana knows everything except that he's an ignorant jackass, and we know that part.
He lied under oath about having cheated on his wife. These are not high crimes and misdemeanors, not worth of impeachment and many Republican legislators agreed when they voted on it.
And don't think Republicans do the same thing either when they defend one of their own. It's a common failing of anyone who is partisan and puts party loyalty above the duties to the country and its citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Although it's much less expensive to just spread the story of how bad the company is far and wide on the internet and see what the PR damage does to you bill. This actually works in several cases.
If it was Jim Carey in drag playing Holmes I'd go watch it.
Visionary IS crazy. A visionary sees things that aren't really there. Venture capitalists are essentially lost in the desert and running out of water, and when they see some heat addled brain wander by they say "which way should we walk?" 9 times out of 10 the crazy guy points to a bad direction to go, but that one time it just happens by chance to be correct. The VCs walk out of the desert, just barely, and proclaim the peyote imbibing loon a visionary.
The only difference between Theranos and the typical dot-com startup was the degree of insanity.
The sets weren't the same though. The UFO moonbase sets were kind of small. I was surprised that the Space:1999 moon base had large sets with more open space. It feels odd given that a moon base would have limited resources. Google the images for "moon base alpha interiors".
Often the incompetent people who understood the code originally leave and are replaced with incompetent people who don't understand the code. Hiring competent people may not be one of the options you're presented with.
Half the time the people who wrote it don't even realize they made a mistake. I've done it myself, looking at old code and thinking "what moron did this?", looking at who made the code commit, and realizing it was me.
Have to agree there. I've seen that new guy in several places. "Why are you using C+ in your embedded system, there's this new language called Java you should use!", "Well, MY professor said that's the wrong way to do things", "I have a few suggestions for your coding style document", "I saw a goto in the code, who's the proper HR person to report this to?
The snag is that rewriting is not a direct revenue generating operation, so it's usually frowned upon as a waste of money. I know lots of code that really needs rewriting but it can't practically be done. Most likely the people who understand that code have left years ago and never documented anything (the code wouldn't even need rewriting if the original authors were good enough to know to document things clearly).
Don't even start thinking about rewriting until you have clear documenation about what the code actually does and have developers who understand it. Don't design in a rush like the first group did. And watch out for that one guy pushing for the rewrite who thinks he knows everything but really doesn't.
And rewriting the code may mean that you end up not being backwards compatible. Contrary to what Joel implied, the original code usually does NOT have hard earned knowlege behind it, generally all that old crufty code was written in startup days when you have to quickly ship a working demo every Friday or be out of a job, so there are tons of bugs and shortcuts riddled through everything. And you have to remain compatible with the bugs most of the time in order to interoperate (keeping the same protocols, file formats, etc).
A lot of these suits happen after someone is fired. So leaving the company in protest is sort of moot at that point.
If they place some value on Palestinean lives, then why is it that every time things seem to be cooling down a bit they go and build some new illegal settlements in occupied land even though they know it will only cause more fighting? Both sides know what to do to have peace, and both sides assiduously avoid it.
A kitchen table in low-rent apartment housing 6 families, or Jeff Bezos' kitchen table?
I still haven't figured out why The Final Countdown isn't NASA's theme song for every mission.
Just to summarize most of humanity's never-ending conflicts: "If they stopped killing us then we wouldn't be forced to kill them." This excuse always ignores that the other side is using the same excuse as well.
Sort of. It had an Italian TV producer. I loved some Gerry Anderson stuff but then it felt flat when he did Space: 1999. Not sure why. U.F.O. was fun with a quirky futuristic feel. Space:1999 just felt like the 70's in space with lousy scripts and awful actors (Barbara Bain seemed to just be collecting a paycheck, And Martin Landau who is otherwise great really didn't seem to pull off the vibe of being a leader).
South Florida is the homeland for all retirees.
You also don't want to let that door open even a crack. Companies have intruded more and more into privacy in the past. Why wait until something awful happens before you tell them to stop it?
You thought you shut the bathroom door for privacy, but the door didn't click and pretty soon the dog is sitting there wagging his tail watching you poop.
This would be funny if it weren't true. No wait. It is funny. Not even the most highly LSD fueled scifi writer in the 70s could have predicted this outcome for humanity.
The Spectre and Meltdown attack proof-of-concepts were for Intel processors, presumably also the clones, and the attacks are based on knowing internal specifics of their highly speculative execution engines. Ie, if you don't use a PC you're automatically a lot safe (though not completely), and if you're using a processor without a speculative execution engine then these attack vectors won't do anything at all. The chips that are vulnerable are very high end CPUs, not the stuff in your microwave or wifi router. Though of course, those processors undoubtedly have their own vulnerabilities, they're just not Spectre or Meltdown.
The other thing that's important in security is if an attacker can get close or not. I don't worry much about my automobile being hacked because it's not on the internet and would require physical access to compromise it. Similarly, if you're on a PC and you have 100% control over any and all code running on it, then it will be pretty safe (ie, it's not plugged into the internet, you're not shoving in thumbdrives, etc).
Things start becoming much more susceptible to Spectre or Meltdown once you start letting your browser run random Javascript from the internet, or if you put your product up in the cloud running on just one of many VMs residing on the same physical server.
The side channel attacks do things like measure how long a set of operations take to execute, which gives extra information about what the operations actually did. That can tell you if some relevant data was already in the cache or whether it had to be loaded from RAM. Do the appropriate magic and you can start to deduce things about the contents of memory that you can't see.
That is, it's a side-channel attack. They're still treating the processor a a black box that you can't peek inside of, but you can still get some information to leak out (shake the box and listen).
This is complicated stuff though, and some of these things are estimating maybe you can figure out the contents of 2000 bytes a second. The details of the attacks are highly depending upon the exact processor being used.
I am. Though maybe it's just bad technology reporting. When they say "all processors that perform speculative execution will always remain susceptible" there's something wrong being reported. They should add in that this does not mean ALL processors (past, present, future, and from any vendor), and should end with "unless processors are redesigned."
Reading the summary as-is literally, it is disgreeing with itself.
Too soon?
Good point. I feel there's a whole lot of wishy washy handwaving done with evolution by people who don't have an indepth knowledge of evolution. I will agree I am someone who doesn't know it as well as many. I do see however many people who seem to have a superficial understanding and who have a lot of anthropomorphic views on it. Ie, that evolution leads from to better organisms, that some creatures are more evolved than others, that there's a "reason" or goal for evolution and that every facet of an organism has a purpose. This reaches levels of absurdity with sociology people at times, such as "what is the evolutionary purpose for grandparents?"
When you think about it, we actually do know everying there is to know. This Joe Read from Montana knows everything except that he's an ignorant jackass, and we know that part.
GOP on Clinton: Total lack of moral character, unsuitable to be president.
GOP on Trump: Best guy ever, darling of the evangelicals.
He lied under oath about having cheated on his wife. These are not high crimes and misdemeanors, not worth of impeachment and many Republican legislators agreed when they voted on it.
And don't think Republicans do the same thing either when they defend one of their own. It's a common failing of anyone who is partisan and puts party loyalty above the duties to the country and its citizens.